Lord Babs: exactly! How did your god first start(existing & creating things), if it wasn't first caused(either by something else or by itself)?

So are you saying that the universe is uncaused ? That it always existed ?

Lord Babs: think again, cretin, if god wasn't caused, then it must have DEFINITELY caused itself, hence its causality, hence its beginning. U get dat?

Maybe God is indeed self-caused. I think a more accurate statement would be that He is eternal.

Lord Babs: the same way your fetish god sprung outta-no-where, clad in uncaused mightiness and 'unsource' intelligence, evolving plenty things.

So you believe in magic too abi. Mayne atheists and theists aren't so different after all. We both believe in things that are uncaused.

Uyi Iredia:

So you believe in magic too abi. Mayne atheists and theists aren't so different after all. We both believe in things that are uncaused.

What a load of nonsense.


We dont fully know how the universe came about. We are still learning more about the big bang. That is how science works, we improve from one breakthrough/discovery to another.


What creationists like you do is claim that you know how it happened! God did it!

Logicboy03:

When did I say something can come from nothing?

Funny how your god came from nothing. No evidence, no cause, nothing

I see. Then what caused the Big Bang.

Logicboy03: Allah and Thor are myths for the same reason as Yaweh

What reason ? Until you state a reason I'm not taking this point seriously.

Logicboy03: Fail. Fallacious thinking.

biological living things are quite different from non-living things. Apllying the same design logic to them is very wrong

The design logic works just fine thank you. You haven't debunked it.

Logicboy03: That is a formula and not a process.


Physics deals with physical processes. The spiritual process of a spiritual god creating the universe is not scientific.

Is Physics a tangible material ?

Logicboy03:


What a load of nonsense.


We dont fully know how the universe came about. We are still learning more about the big bang. That is how science works, we improve from one breakthrough/discovery to another.


What creationists like you do is claim that you know how it happened! God did it!

Creationists do more than say God did it. They engage in research, they collate data and interpret the results according to their framework. Maybe you should read books like Starlight And Time You need to ask the all important question: What caused the Big B@ng.

Uyi Iredia:

I see. Then what caused the Big Bang.

Nobody knows. Furthermore, if the big bang was the beginning of time and space, causality is not appropriate or attachable to before the big bang.

What scienitists dont do is lie and say that some god who came from nothing magically created the universe.

Uyi Iredia:
What reason ? Until you state a reason I'm not taking this point seriously.

The holy books are faulty. Allah/Thor is unprovable. The exact same reason your god doesnt exist

Uyi Iredia:
The design logic works just fine thank you. You haven't debunked it.

Fail.

Uyi Iredia:
Is Physics a tangible material ?

Foolish question.


physical processes.

A spiritual being is out of bounds with physical processes that cosmology/physics studies

Uyi Iredia:

Creationists do more than say God did it. They engage in research, they collate data and interpret the results according to their framework. Maybe you should read books like Starlight And Time You need to ask the all important question: What caused the Big B@ng.

So they remix the data to meet their creationism? lol.



Science always points away from god and it has been moving further and further away.

Logicboy03:

Nobody knows. Furthermore, if the big bang was the beginning of time and space, causality is not appropriate or attachable to before the big bang.

What scienitists dont do is lie and say that some god who came from nothing magically created the universe.

You don't say nobody knows is an answer that is bringing nothing to the table. I've told you already that causality is not limited by time since it causes time and that causality is a universal principle which means it cannot be circumvented.

Logicboy03: The holy books are faulty. Allah/Thor is unprovable. The exact same reason your god doesnt exist

Allah/Thor are inferred from Nature. How many times do I have to tell you that we infer God from the existence of Nature. If there was no Creator there would be nothing. No logicboy, no Iredia, nothing.

Logicboy03:
Fail.

A lazy reply.

Logicboy03: Foolish question.


physical processes.

A spiritual being is out of bounds with physical processes that cosmology/physics studies

You did not answer the question which I will repeat: Is Physics tangible ?

Logicboy03:



So they remix the data to meet their creationism? lol.



Science always points away from god and it has been moving further and further away.

No they interpret the data according to a young-earth framework. If you don't know that scientific data are interpreted within established frameworks then you know little about how science is actually done.

Science points to a God and it has moved closer especially with the level of complexity seen in cells which couldn't possibly have evolved by mutations & natural selection.

Uyi Iredia:

No they interpret the data according to a young-earth framework. If you don't know that scientific data are interpreted within established frameworks then you know little about how science is actually done.

Science points to a God and it has moved closer especially with the level of complexity seen in cells which couldn't possibly have evolved by mutations & natural selection.

Fail. Has science ever established anything supernatural? Fail.




Young earth creationism is the worst! Denying evolution!!!!!


Kai....una christians love fairytales!

inurmind:

Good for u. I was a christian my whole life, and its also crap.

real crap

Logicboy03:



Fail. Has science ever established anything supernatural? Fail.




Young earth creationism is the worst! Denying evolution!!!!!


Kai....una christians love fairytales!

Has science ever encounterewd anything so complex it couldn't have arisen by chance and therefore must have been designed ? Yes ! Yes ! Yes ! Your evolutionary fairytale isn't real.

Uyi Iredia:

Has science ever encounterewd anything so complex it couldn't have arisen by chance and therefore must have been designed ? Yes ! Yes ! Yes ! Your evolutionary fairytale isn't real.

So many fails in one sentence


Fossils, DNA and observed changes in species yet evolution is not real.


God however, that has no evidence and is unprovable is real.



#christian logic fails

Logicboy03:







So many fails in one sentence


Fossils, DNA and observed changes in species yet evolution is not real.


God however, that has no evidence and is unprovable is real.



#christian logic fails

I see. Let's look at the 'evidence' you posted.

Fossils - are few and do not document a gradual transition between species. Instead it shows a sharp increase in flora & fauna over time which lead a paleontologist to come up with punctuated equilibria.

DNA - whose origin is still not properly accounted for. Most experiments that claim to have found a plausible natural way the DNA aros involve highly monitoted & designed procedures with lots of human interference.

Observed changes in species - is the worst possible evidence because there have been no reported changes above the species level. All variations are strictly limited to the species or sub-species level. This explains why fruit flies remained fruit flies despite years of induced mutations & natural selection by a certain scientist.

So you see Mr logicboy. The evidence for your evolution is nil. While the evidence for my God is pervasive.

Uyi Iredia:

I see. Let's look at the 'evidence' you posted.

Fossils - are few and do not document a gradual transition between species. Instead it shows a sharp increase in flora & fauna over time which lead a paleontologist to come up with punctuated equilibria.

DNA - whose origin is still not properly accounted for. Most experiments that claim to have found a plausible natural way the DNA aros involve highly monitoted & designed procedures with lots of human interference.

Observed changes in species - is the worst possible evidence because there have been no reported changes above the species level. All variations are strictly limited to the species or sub-species level. This explains why fruit flies remained fruit flies despite years of induced mutations & natural selection by a certain scientist.

So you see Mr logicboy. The evidence for your evolution is nil. While the evidence for my God is pervasive.

You copied and pasted that nonsense from a creationist website. Fail


Fossils- There are numerous human transitional fossils. I dont know where you pasted that lie from. Simple link for you to read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils


DNA;

Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document the fact of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.
Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts a


Observed evolution in species;
The three-spined sticklebacks, freshwater fishes, that have been studied by Dolph Schluter (who received his Ph.D. for his work on Darwin's finches with Peter J. Grant) and his current colleagues in British Columbia, were once thought to provide an intriguing example best explained by sympatric speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Example_of_three-spined_sticklebacks




Evidence will never be on your creationist side

Logicboy03:


You copied and pasted that nonsense from a creationist website. Fail

Honestly I didn't copy that from a creationist website. You on the other hand are a copycats who drops Wikipedia gibberish at every chance.

Logicboy03:
Fossils- There are numerous human transitional fossils. I dont know where you pasted that lie from. Simple link for you to read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

Only humans. What of horses, trees, crocodiles, spiders etc. Even the human transitional series is fraught with fossils that were grossly incomplete eg some fossils were assumed from a set of teeth or bones of arms & legs. It is also surmised by creationists (and sometimes evolutionists) that most of these fossils are actually those of dead apes.

Logicboy03:
DNA;

Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document the fact of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.
Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts a

First explain the origin of the DNA using your theory. You haven't. Those sequences could easily be evidence for common design and not descent.

Logicboy03:
Observed evolution in species;
The three-spined sticklebacks, freshwater fishes, that have been studied by Dolph Schluter (who received his Ph.D. for his work on Darwin's finches with Peter J. Grant) and his current colleagues in British Columbia, were once thought to provide an intriguing example best explained by sympatric speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Example_of_three-spined_sticklebacks

Did the sticklebacks give birth to jellyfish or they were still sticklebacks ?

Logicboy03:
Evidence will never be on your creationist side

I think you are the one having problems presenting the evidence to the theory you hold so dearly.

Uyi Iredia:

Honestly I didn't copy that from a creationist website. You on the other hand are a copycats who drops Wikipedia gibberish at every chance.



Only humans. What of horses, trees, crocodiles, spiders etc. Even the human transitional series is fraught with fossils that were grossly incomplete eg some fossils were assumed from a set of teeth or bones of arms & legs. It is also surmised by creationists (and sometimes evolutionists) that most of these fossils are actually those of dead apes.



First explain the origin of the DNA using your theory. You haven't. Those sequences could easily be evidence for common design and not descent.



Did the sticklebacks give birth to jellyfish or they were still sticklebacks ?



I think you are the one having problems presenting the evidence to the theory you hold so dearly.

Your assertions were wrong and totally false. After I debunk them, you move to pull out nonsense and say the opposite/mock whatever evidence I bring.
You didnt even make one coherent argument for creationism or back yourself up with any evidence.


You pasted lies and when caught, you didnt defend any of the assertions only to mock evidence.



Seriously, I am tired of your folly.

Logicboy03:
Your assertions were wrong and totally false. After I debunk them, you move to pull out nonsense and say the opposite/mock whatever evidence I bring.

What you do is copy and paste what you don't even understand. You fail to note critical faults in your posted articles. You know next to nothing about creationism.

Logicboy03: You didnt even make one coherent argument for creationism or back yourself up with any evidence.

I was arguing against evolution. I wasn't arguing for creationism.

Logicboy03: You pasted lies and when caught, you didnt defend any of the assertions only to mock evidence.

Caught ? Caught for what ? How did you catch me ? I've told you I didn't copy and paste. Those points were originally written by me.

Logicboy03:
Seriously, I am tired of your folly.

Funny because I'm not tired of your own folly. I will do all I can to rid you of them.

Uyi Iredia:

What you do is copy and paste what you don't even understand. You fail to note critical faults in your posted articles. You know next to nothing about creationism.



I was arguing against evolution. I wasn't arguing for creationism.



Caught ? Caught for what ? How did you catch me ? I've told you I didn't copy and paste. Those points were originally written by me.



Funny because I'm not tired of your own folly. I will do all I can to rid you of them.

Fail....oh Lord, deliver me from the fail!


You mention things like creationism and "common design" which are nonsense.


You argue against the evidence of common descent which has clearly been established.



Everyone can see that you are a deceitful tool

Logicboy03:
Fail....oh Lord, deliver me from the fail!

Lol. Ol boy, you dey crack ma ribs.

Logicboy03:
You mention things like creationism and "common design" which are nonsense.

They aren't. You just THINK they are.

Logicboy03:
You argue against the evidence of common descent which has clearly been established.

In the minds of evolutionists only. But there are skeptics of evolution who don't share that view. And I am one of 'em.

Logicboy03:
Everyone can see that you are a deceitful tool

I see

Uyi Iredia:

Lol. Ol boy, you dey crack ma ribs.

lol

Uyi Iredia:
They aren't. You just THINK they are.

No, all reputable biologists and the evidence say that they are rubbish

Uyi Iredia:
In the minds of evolutionists only. But there are skeptics of evolution who don't share that view. And I am one of 'em.



I see

Skeptics of evolution are never reputable biologists, I wonder why

Logicboy03:

lol

Logicboy03: No, all reputable biologists and the evidence say that they are rubbish

That's the argument from authority fallacy logicboy. Just because reputable biologists said so doesn't mean it is rubbish.

Logicboy03: Skeptics of evolution are never reputable biologists, I wonder why

I can mention one reputable biologist. Pierre Paul Grasse. Google him. Also Google and download the free e-book Unmasking Evolution. It has many quotes by more reputable biologists & evolutionists who disagree with one or more aspects of evolution.

Uyi Iredia:





That's the argument from authority fallacy logicboy. Just because reputable biologists said so doesn't mean it is rubbish.

I also mentioned evidence. You chose to ignore that to make your argument from authority propaganda

Uyi Iredia:
I can mention one reputable biologist. Pierre Paul Grasse. Google him. Also Google and download the free e-book Unmasking Evolution. It has many quotes by more reputable biologists & evolutionists who disagree with one or more aspects of evolution.

Paul Grasse is dead

true?:
Hmmm? Lets see. I’m not to smart, so help me reason this out. If I’ve never done it, I can’t really understand how the other guy feels…is that correct?

Here are some things I have never felt;

Murder. I have never killed anyone.

I’m a man so I’ve never been a LovePeddler. In truth I do believe men who sell their bodies are also whores.

I have never turned my back on God.

Have never stood in front of a speeding train, jumped off a cliff, run a car into a tree at 100mph, shot myself in the mouth, and a million other things I have never done…so don’t know how those who have feel.

One think I have done…I have learned Gods word, tested, and reasoned it out. I believe with my every breath in God, his written word, and that I am a sinner. I do not follow any religion of man.
To accept your reasoning (challenge) would be the act of a fool. I know there are many who will follow your reasoning, but before they do, they should ask, “Who’s reasoning are you following?”

Read my post well. I said as long as it does not have any bad effects in the society.
Murder, prostitution do have bad effects.
Jumping infront of trains and driving at high speed to only hit a tree is suicidal so that is out of question.
I am telling u to be an atheist for twelve days not for ur whole life.

But lets look at ur example of jumping off a cliff-with parachutes.
You really have never experienced it, so u do not know if it is a wonderfully thrilling experience or just a plain horrible.

I myself only have an idea, but will be justified enough to judge it when I do experience it.

That is my line of reasoning, and I do not need a book written by ignorant men to think for me.

Logicboy03:
I also mentioned evidence. You chose to ignore that to make your argument from authority propaganda

What you have said here makes no sense in light of what I've said. What do you mean by propaganda ?

Logicboy03:
Paul Grasse is dead

So what ? He's reputable. Lemme mention a geneticist, John Sanford.

Uyi Iredia:

What you have said here makes no sense in light of what I've said. What do you mean by propaganda ?



So what ? He's reputable. Lemme mention a geneticist, John Sanford.

Intelligent design advocate William Dembski touts the accomplishments of Sanford as evidence of the scientific status of intelligent design, since Sanford is a specialist in genetic engineering and an Associate Professor in Horticulture. However, Sanford's position is rejected by most geneticists and biologists.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford#Origins

inurmind:

Read my post well. I said as long as it does not have any bad effects in the society.
Murder, prostitution do have bad effects.
Jumping infront of trains and driving at high speed to only hit a tree is suicidal so that is out of question.
I am telling u to be an atheist for twelve days not for ur whole life.

But lets look at ur example of jumping off a cliff-with parachutes.
You really have never experienced it, so u do not know if it is a wonderfully thrilling experience or just a plain horrible.

I myself only have an idea, but will be justified enough to judge it when I do experience it.

That is my line of reasoning, and I do not need a book written by ignorant men to think for me.

Are us suggesting we listen to an ignorant women?

true?:


Are us suggesting we listen to an ignorant women?

Huh?
U know never mind. Its ur choice to choose to believe whatever u want. I do not contend with that.
But I have just a short exercise which would not take a blink of ur ''eternal'' life. U might not even remember it afterwards.

So what do u say? Are u brave enough?
Are u so secure and sure of u stance as to explore mine?

inurmind:

Huh?
U know never mind. Its ur choice to choose to believe whatever u want. I do not contend with that.
But I have just a short exercise which would not take a blink of ur ''eternal'' life. U might not even remember it afterwards.

So what do u say? Are u brave enough?
Are u so secure and sure of u stance as to explore mine?

I love my God. I would not forget him for twelve minutes, let alone twelve days. Do Satans work else where.

true?:


I love my God. I would not forget him for twelve minutes, let alone twelve days. Do Satans work else where.

Nice way to say u are scared. U can take a bow and leave now.

inurmind:

Nice way to say u are scared. U can take a bow and leave now.

Who are you to command who is to stay, and who is to leave? You are the one who should have fear of falling into the hands of the living God. This test you offer the members of this forum is not from God. You do Satan’s tempting.